Jump to content
Christianlady

Explaining The Bible, By A Christian Lady

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

(bismillah)

(salam)

You're imposing too many strict demands on the Bible, whereas we have similar occurrences in the Qur'ān - it's only fair that you don't use double standards.

Jesus is a word from God in the Qur'an, and he became flesh. But clearly Jesus wasn't actually a "word" in the sense that a sentence is made out of "words". Thus, it is metaphoric.

This overshadowing is not an indecent term. Perhaps you are reading it indecently. In the Qur'ān, God breathes from His spirit into Mary in this way:

And Mary the daughter of 'Imran, who guarded her private part - and We breathed into it of Our spirit; and she testified to the truth of the words of her Lord and of His revelations, and was one of the devout (servants). Qur'ān 66:12

There is nothing indecent in either of these accounts.

Two different prophets intepreted God's work in two different ways. In the Qur'ān we have something similar: we have the angel who takes the life of a human being, and we have God who takes the life of a human being. Yet, these two are not contradictory, but they are focusing on the different causes of "death". God takes the life, but through the angel.

Here, God's word brings about the world, but by His right hand He moulds and fashion it. Where the prior focuses on the wisdom and logos of God, the latter focuses on the power of God.

Are you sure that, in your zeal, you are not being unfair to the text?

I'm a Muslim, and I have no necessary relationship with the Bible, but it's a text which is sacred to many human beings - some of them extremely intellectual and spiritual, and so I'm obliged to give it the most charitable and reasonable reading I can offer. That's not to say I think it's perfect and preserved - but these particular objections are the result of wanting to see imperfection.

(wasalam)

You are comparing the truth of Qura'an to the untruth of Bible.

Your comment. This overshadowing is not an indecent term. Perhaps you are reading it indecently. In the Qur'ān, God breathes from His spirit into Mary in this way:

You forgot to mention that Bible clearly states, NT. Jesus is of Holy Spirit. That is after stating this holy spirit overshadowed here to make her pregnant. It specifically states the child she is carrying is of Holy Spirit. The indecency comes when god begets son.

your comment: but it's a text which is sacred to many human beings - some of them extremely intellectual and spiritual, and so I'm obliged to give it the most charitable and reasonable reading I can offer.

These extremely intellectual and spiritual Christians has to yet get an answer to how NT. Jesus = Word of god from the bible. For you and me it makes sense that God Almighty's command is sufficient for things to happen. For them it is not so. You can read bible in any light you wish and yet you cannot say word of god conceived NT. Jesus.

So we have to explore John's "in the beginning was word, word was with god and word was god". The interjection came later where this word became flesh and NT. Jesus. This word created everything that was created. The word = NT. Jesus.

So one has to ask when did OT god started talking if spoken word of OT god = NT. Jesus. Was anything created by OT god without talking. Was any word of OT. God sufficient to conceive NT. Mary? Well Genesis gives the answer in it's version regarding creation and bible's story of it's Mary's conception of NT. Jesus is plain enough for anyone to understand that word of god which the angel passed is not sufficient for her to become pregnant. Please do not compare this to Qura'an as both are not comparable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jebreil

(bismillah)

(salam)

I would like to correct my translation of the āyah of the Qur'ān:

The correct version is this:

And Mary the daughter of 'Imran, who guarded her private part - and We breathed into her of Our spirit; and she testified to the truth of the words of her Lord and of His revelations, and was one of the devout (servants). Qur'ān 66:12

Yet, I wouldn't have seen anything indecent either way. "Overshadowing" itself is a very innocent term, which means that she was subjected to the spirit.

I apologise for the mistaken translation.

(wasalam)

You are comparing the truth of Qura'an to the untruth of Bible.

Your comment. This overshadowing is not an indecent term. Perhaps you are reading it indecently. In the Qur'ān, God breathes from His spirit into Mary in this way:

You forgot to mention that Bible clearly states, NT. Jesus is of Holy Spirit. That is after stating this holy spirit overshadowed here to make her pregnant. It specifically states the child she is carrying is of Holy Spirit. The indecency comes when god begets son.

your comment: but it's a text which is sacred to many human beings - some of them extremely intellectual and spiritual, and so I'm obliged to give it the most charitable and reasonable reading I can offer.

These extremely intellectual and spiritual Christians has to yet get an answer to how NT. Jesus = Word of god from the bible. For you and me it makes sense that God Almighty's command is sufficient for things to happen. For them it is not so. You can read bible in any light you wish and yet you cannot say word of god conceived NT. Jesus.

So we have to explore John's "in the beginning was word, word was with god and word was god". The interjection came later where this word became flesh and NT. Jesus. This word created everything that was created. The word = NT. Jesus.

So one has to ask when did OT god started talking if spoken word of OT god = NT. Jesus. Was anything created by OT god without talking. Was any word of OT. God sufficient to conceive NT. Mary? Well Genesis gives the answer in it's version regarding creation and bible's story of it's Mary's conception of NT. Jesus is plain enough for anyone to understand that word of god which the angel passed is not sufficient for her to become pregnant. Please do not compare this to Qura'an as both are not comparable.

(bismillah)

(salam)

This "talking" which you emphasise is really not important. You are mistaking "logos" for speech. I would recommend a study of the meaning of the term, since it is important to note the Greek origins of the thought.

According to Trinitarian (and probably Unitarian) Christianity, the Father created the world for Jesus, thus Jesus was the reason the world was created. This is nothing too strange. We even have ḥadīth that the world was created only for the Prophet Muḥammad, and had it not been for him, there would be no world - because God would not create it, except for his sake.

and yet you cannot say word of god conceived NT. Jesus.

That's because they don't believe it did. They believe Jesus was the Word, and we have a similar belief, in that He was a select word from God.

Your post is a little confused, and it's very difficult to actually follow a line of argument. Could you please start with one argument at time, define your key words, set the premises, provide the relevant texts, and draw your conclusion?

(wasalam)

Edited by Jebreil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you sure that, in your zeal, you are not being unfair to the text?

I'm a Muslim, and I have no necessary relationship with the Bible, but it's a text which is sacred to many human beings - some of them extremely intellectual and spiritual, and so I'm obliged to give it the most charitable and reasonable reading I can offer. That's not to say I think it's perfect and preserved - but these particular objections are the result of wanting to see imperfection.

A reasonable reading and a charitable reading may not be the same thing. I think a reasonable reading of the Gospel of John, in light of the fact that it is the latest of the four canonical Gospels, does indeed give the impression of a text that seeks to portray Jesus as divine. Giving a very charitable reading, you could argue that the evangalists met up and decided they would portray different aspects of Jesus' character. However, I think that explanation, popular with conservative Christians, strains credulity a little, and is not what I would necessarily call a reasonable reading.

The best is probably to give a reasonably charitable reading, but I don't see the need to do more than that.

According to Trinitarian (and probably Unitarian) Christianity, the Father created the world for Jesus, thus Jesus was the reason the world was created.

By Jesus, I assume you mean the god-man Jesus, and not the Son, who is of course uncreated according to orthodox Trinitarian belief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jebreil

A reasonable reading and a charitable reading may not be the same thing. I think a reasonable reading of the Gospel of John, in light of the fact that it is the latest of the four canonical Gospels, does indeed give the impression of a text that seeks to portray Jesus as divine. Giving a very charitable reading, you could argue that the evangalists met up and decided they would portray different aspects of Jesus' character. However, I think that explanation, popular with conservative Christians, strains credulity a little, and is not what I would necessarily call a reasonable reading.

The best is probably to give a reasonably charitable reading, but I don't see the need to do more than that.

(bismillah)

(salam)

There are 2 issues:

1. Is Christianity a coherent religion?

2. Is Christianity a true religion?

I don't believe the 2nd point, but I believe that a Unitarian reading allows for the 1st point. The Trinitarian reading, due to the idea of the Trinity - which is not really substantiated in the scriptures - would most likely fail the coherence test. Some form of Ebionitism, which is a form of Christianity, is coherent and probably the most accurate reading possible from the gospels.

While John's gospel emphasises the mystical side of Christ, it does not go so far as to make him "God". When read in conjunction with the other gospels, it's easier to conclude that he is just the beloved servant of God, who is the highpoint of creation, much like the Prophet Muḥammad in our cosmology.

(wasalam)

By Jesus, I assume you mean the god-man Jesus, and not the Son, who is of course uncreated according to orthodox Trinitarian belief.

There's no difference. This is in fact certainly a Trinitarian doctrine: The Father loved the Son and this love was the Holy Spirit, and this dynamic created the world.

Unitarians could see it in a more Islāmic perspective.

(wasalam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are 2 issues:

1. Is Christianity a coherent religion?

2. Is Christianity a true religion?

I don't believe the 2nd point, but I believe that a Unitarian reading allows for the 1st point. The Trinitarian reading, due to the idea of the Trinity - which is not really substantiated in the scriptures - would most likely fail the coherence test. Some form of Ebionitism, which is a form of Christianity, is coherent and probably the most accurate reading possible from the gospels.

While John's gospel emphasises the mystical side of Christ, it does not go so far as to make him "God". When read in conjunction with the other gospels, it's easier to conclude that he is just the beloved servant of God, who is the highpoint of creation, much like the Prophet Muḥammad in our cosmology.

I think this is a little uncharitable to the many great Christian minds that have deeply thought about this issue, and settled on a Trinitarian understanding of the Bible. I don't think anyone would chose to believe in such a difficult, and in some sense incomprehensible, doctrine, unless they felt the text really compelled them to. Personally, I think the Trinitarian case is probably stronger than the Unitarian one, and that tends to come out in the debates between the two groups. There are of course some problems with the Trinitarian reading, but it probably fits more of the text than the Unitarian one does. The fact that neither reading fits perfectly is quite useful however, since from a non-Christian point of view, Trinitatian arguments can be used against Unitarians, and vice-versa.

There's no difference. This is in fact certainly a Trinitarian doctrine: The Father loved the Son and this love was the Holy Spirit, and this dynamic created the world.

Sorry, I misread what you initially wrote. For some reason I thought you were saying the Father created Jesus. I must have hallucinated.

Nevertheless, in terms of Trinitarian doctrine, although the Father could be said to create the world, he did it through the Son. To say he created it for Jesus, which makes it sound as if there was no participation of the Son in creation, is therefore a little misleading.

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. (John 1:1-3, NIV)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jebreil

(bismillah)

(salam)

According to their doctrine:

Jesus was participating in creation - he was the end cause, the telos.

On the question between Trinity and Unity, I would differ. I think it was tradition of the church and the councils which developed the Trinity, hence why the existence of 'heresies' which rejected the Trinitarian creed. These people, very intellectual and spiritual, were only following what they believed to be the true Apostolic tradition, much like how Muslims rely on Ḥadīth, due to its tawātur.

As far as the Gospels are concerned, there is no formulation of the Trinity, there is no express declaration of the divinity of Christ by Christ or the apostles, except one exclamation by Timothy, which can hardly be proof for Christ's divinity, since the context is unclear. Christ is emphasised as being subservient to the Father in many cases, and the idea 'son of god' or 'my begotten son' has precedent in the Old Testament, which belonged to a people who would consider the Trinity blasphemy.

The most important commandments were expressed, but it was a repeat of the Jewish Shema formula.

If it was central to Christ's message, you would expect it to appear in the text. But it doesn't. Therefore, on the reading of the gospels themselves, the Trinitarian view is weaker than the Unitarian reading.

(wasalam)

Edited by Jebreil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Bible has man touched too many times. No point in discussing anything from it. Its not authentic. Too many variations, you and I, can make our own interpretations. Whereas the Quran has been untouched, hence why its in one language.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Bible has man touched too many times. No point in discussing anything from it. Its not authentic. Too many variations, you and I, can make our own interpretations. Whereas the Quran has been untouched, hence why its in one language.

Yet it was established a full 300 years before the Quran, and what does the Quran say about it? It confirms what was written before it. It seems to me that it also says People of the book will not grieve in the end times. How could that be while following a totally corrupted book? No point in discussing it is a cop-out. Saves you the trouble of studying the rest of God's word.

Quran untouched sounds like descended to earth from Allah Himself, but we do know it was also written on this and that, kept in bits and parts, memorized by so many for so long, then compiled by men. No matter how you slice it, you can't say untouched. Luckily everyone involved spoke/wrote Arabic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ibrahim,

I have been reading your good discussion and see that you have done a lot of reading and research on the subject of ‘The Word,’ and how it relates to Jesus.

I would like to give a different perspective for the sake of understanding what John said in John 1.

In Genesis 1:1 it says, “In the beginning God” --- (So God was ‘in the beginning.’)

It continues to say, “God created the heavens and the earth.” --- (In this opening statement it doesn’t say how God created them.)

2. The earth was without form and void (empty) and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. --- (So the Spirit of God was with God ‘in the beginning.’ --- And because God is Holy, His Spirit is Holy, so is referred to in the Scriptures as the Holy Spirit. --- And the Holy Spirit activated life in the sea.)

3. Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.

4. And God saw the light, that it was good.

--- God said, ‘Let there BE! --- and it appeared. --- Isn’t it interesting that it appeared, or ‘came into BEING before God saw ‘that it was good.’

When God said “BE,’ --- it was an order to ‘come into BEING.’

--- When God said “Be” it required ‘action’ to cause His Word to materialize, so The Word (Logos) is the action of the Word ‘Be’, as we will see in John 1.

Surah 3:59. Lo! The likeness of Jesus with God is as the likeness of Adam. He created him of dust, then He said unto him: ‘Be!’ – and he is.

--- The same angel Gabriel that revealed God’s messages to Muhammad, said to Mary in Luke 1:35. “The Holy Spirit will come upon you and the Power of the Highest will overshadow you and that Holy One who is to be born will be CALLED the Son of God”

Surah 3:47, She (Mary) said, “How can I have a child when no mortal has touched me?” He said, “So it will be. God creates what He will. If He decrees a thing, He says unto it only, ‘Be!’ – and it is.”

--- (So, as Adam was created perfect through the Word (Logos) ‘Be!’ – and he is, --- Jesus was created perfect through the Word (Logos) ‘Be!’ – and he is.)

If you change the interesting concept of OT Jesus and NT Jesus --- to OT Word (Logos) and NT Word (Logos), John 1 would read like this:

1 In the beginning was the Word (Logos), and the Word (Logos) was with God, and the Word (Logos) was God. (I will explain later, ‘the Word was God.’)

2 He (the Word Logos) was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made through Him (the Word Logos), and without Him (the Word Logos) nothing was made that was made.

4 In Him (the Word logos) was life (the Spiritual life of God) , and the life was the light (spiritual enlightenment) of men.

5 And the light shines in the darkness (spiritual darkness), and the darkness did not comprehend it.

6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John (the Baptist).

7 This man came for a witness (Malachi 3:1), to bear witness of the Light (Light is capitalized because it refers to the Word Logos that brought light into being, and, who would be ‘manifested’ through Him who said, “I am the Light of the world), that all through him (the Light, Jesus) might believe.

8 He (John the Baptist) was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light (The Light, Jesus, who was indwelt by the Word Logos.)

9 That was the true Light (the Word Logos which was ‘manifested’ through Jesus) which gives (Spiritual) light to every man coming into the world.

10 He (the Word Logos) was in the world (from the beginning), and the world was made through Him (the Word Logos, v 3), and the world did not know Him (the Word Logos).

11 He (the Word Logos) came to His own (creation), and His own (people, the Jews or Hebrews that God chose for His Own) did not receive Him.

12 But as many as received Him (the Word Logos ‘manifested’ in Jesus), to them He (God) gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His (Jesus’) name: --- (Jesus was the Manifestation of God and His Word Logos.)

13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. --- (The new ‘Spiritual birth’ into the family of God.

14 And the Word (Logos) became flesh (was ‘manifested’ in the human body of Jesus) and dwelt among ‘us’ (John and the other disciples), and we beheld His (Jesus’) glory, the glory as of the only begotten (unique) of the Father, full of grace and truth.

15 John (the Baptist) bore witness of Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me is preferred before me, for He was before me.’” --- (The Word Logos was ‘in the beginning,’ therefore, was from before John the Baptist --- and He ‘manifested’ God’s glory in the person of Jesus.)

16 And of His (God’s) fullness we have all received, and grace for grace.

17 For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

18 No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten (unique) Son, who (in the Person of the indwelling Word Logos) is in the bosom of the Father, He (Jesus) has declared Him.

--- (Jesus was the Messenger of God to declare God’s message of salvation to mankind, beginning with His own people, the Jews.)

(will add more later)

Placid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ibrahim,

I wanted to add something that I wrote on another topic by way of explanation of,

“And the Word was God.”

John 1:1 says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” --- When God spoke, it was the WORD OF GOD was it not?

There is no problem with that, is there? --- Again, if the Word was ‘with’ God, --- then God had to be there for the Word to be ‘with’ Him.

Gen 1:2. “And the Spirit of God moved over the face of the waters.”

Even Scientists agree that life on earth began in the sea, do they not?

So, God’s Spirit was there in the beginning, and so ‘the beginning’ as we know it, --- started in the sea.

Since God is HOLY, it is easy to understand that His Spirit is called the HOLY SPIRIT, or the HOLY SPIRIT OF GOD.

So ‘In the beginning’ there was God, and His Word, and His Holy Spirit, and through Them God created and activated the world. Is that not right?

Whatever God, the Father of Creation does, ‘is of God,’ --- what the Word does, ‘is of God,’ --- what the Holy Spirit does, ‘is of God.’ --- And GOD is GOD. --- Is that not right?

The Same Apostle John, who wrote the Gospel, also wrote 1 John, where he said in 5:7, “For there are three that bear witness in Heaven, --- the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are One.”

These Three proceed from THE FIRST CAUSE, --- WHICH IS GOD HIMSELF, --- so They are One in Deity, in Being, in harmony, and in purpose.

--- But notice --- That Jesus was not there, (as some were led to believe through the faulty Nicene Creed). --- So, do you see what caused the problem?

The doctrine of ‘trinity’ puts Jesus in the place of the Word (Logos) and some then call Jesus God. --- As Jesus was born on earth he would have the DNA of Mary, would He not? ---The angel Gabriel said to Mary in Luke 1:35, “That Holy One to be born will be CALLED the Son of God.

--- He was CALLED the Son of God, and usually CALLED Himself the Son of Man.

He was indwelt by the Word (Logos), who could speak through Jesus with the Voice of God. --- But Jesus never said He was God.

Placid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ibrihim,

I would like to ask you about another scenario that may apply.

A human has Body, Soul, and Spirit. --- The Body is the vessel, the Soul is the intellect or ‘seat of the emotions,’ and the Spirit is the breath of life.

Is it possible that Body, Soul, and Spirit can be separated?

--- Yes it is, but if the Soul or Spirit leaves the Body, it causes death to the Body.

The Scripture says in Ecclesiastes 12:7. ‘The body returns to the dust and the spirit returns to God who gave it.’ --- (The Soul then goes to the place it is prepared for.)

--- God is the judge.

But with God, who is Eternal, and cannot die, --- He can be ‘manifested’ in different Personages, as is seen in the OT.

While God is greater than His creation, He has never left Heaven, but has been ‘manifested’ as ‘the Lord God,’ --- ‘the Word (Logos)’ --- and ‘the Holy Spirit,’ --- in the OT, and again in the NT.

In the NT, which is the New Covenant that God revealed through Jesus, where Jesus is CALLED the Son of God, --- God revealed a ‘Father - Son’ relationship, where Jesus taught us to pray to ‘Our Father in heaven.’

The Father speaks from above at Jesus' baptism, and said, “This is My beloved Son in whom I am well pleased,” Matt 3:17, --- and again on the Mount of transfiguration, saying, “This is My beloved Son in whom I am well pleased, hear Him.” Matt 17:5.

--- And the Word (Logos) who was ‘in the beginning with God,’ --- and WAS God, (or, manifested God in different Personages in the OT) --- now appears as the Word in the NT, and was ‘manifesting’ God in the Person of Jesus where John 1:14 says, “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.” --- The Word (Logos) indwelt the human fleshly body of Jesus and ‘manifested’ God’s power and wisdom through Him.

The Word (Logos) could not die, so when Jesus went through death in His human body, the Word (Logos) accompanied Him through death and God restored Jesus to life in a Spiritual body, --- not a body of flesh and blood, as the blood had been drained out of the body from His many wounds, and from the soldier piercing His side. John 19:31-34.

You might have some comments on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi ShiaBen,

Quote from Post 33:

The Bible has man touched too many times. No point in discussing anything from it. Its not authentic. Too many variations, you and I, can make our own interpretations. Whereas the Quran has been untouched, hence why its in one language.

Response: The OT was written in Hebrew, which was the language of the Hebrews. --- The NT was written in Greek, which was the ‘language of commerce,’ having been introduced and spread by Alexander the Great when he had conquered much of the world.

While the Scriptures were touched by human hands, they were not changed as has been wrongly taught. --- About half of the Quran contains the history and experiences of the OT, and Gabriel ‘confirms the former Scriptures,’ Surah 3:3-4.

Various books were rejected because they were not considered authentic, so the Bible has been preserved as it was written, with some discrepancies and differences in dates, but it was given as the Word of God, and, since it is verified in the Quran in 625 AD by the angel Gabriel, it must be true, or Gabriel would have pointed out what was in accurate, would he not?

Any supposed changes would have been made before 625 AD because the Scriptures translated into Latin in 400 AD, and other languages were used in the day of Muhammad, and Gabriel ‘confirmed’ them as true.

--- Sorry, but the Bible is true, whether you want to believe it or not.

I believe that the Quran was revealed to Muhammad and is as God revealed it, but your statement that it was ‘untouched’ is quite untrue.

--- Consider that it was written by others than Muhammad over a period of 23 years. It was quoted by Muhammad and received by the ear, before it could be written or memorized. --- The different Surahs were written on stones, pieces of bark, and writing material that could be distributed for people to memorize from.

Mr Pickthall records in his translation, Quote:

“The written Surahs were distributed among the people: and when, in a battle which took place during the Caliphate of Abu Bakr --- that is to say within two years of the Prophet’s death --- a large number of those who knew the whole Quran by heart were killed, a collection of the whole Quran was made and put in writing. --- In the Caliphate of Uthman, all existing copies of Surahs were called in and an authoritative version, based on Abu Bakr’s collection, and the testimony of those who had the whole Quran by heart, was compiled exactly in the present form and order.” --- End of quote.

--- The Quran was finalized by Uthman some 20 years later and the Collection of Abu Bakr had been preserved by someone else as he was dead. --- So some Surahs were written by dictation, some was copied from memory, --- so you must admit that it was ‘touched’ by many human hands. --- I also understand that all existing copies of those called in were destroyed after the Quran was compiled.

I have read the Quran through and study it in relationship to the Bible.

The Message of the Gospel is in the Quran and it confirms what is written in the NT.

Placid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet it was established a full 300 years before the Quran, and what does the Quran say about it? It confirms what was written before it. It seems to me that it also says People of the book will not grieve in the end times. How could that be while following a totally corrupted book? No point in discussing it is a cop-out. Saves you the trouble of studying the rest of God's word.

Quran untouched sounds like descended to earth from Allah Himself, but we do know it was also written on this and that, kept in bits and parts, memorized by so many for so long, then compiled by men. No matter how you slice it, you can't say untouched. Luckily everyone involved spoke/wrote Arabic.

Yet it was established a full 300 years before the Quran, and what does the Quran say about it? It confirms what was written before it. It seems to me that it also says People of the book will not grieve in the end times. How could that be while following a totally corrupted book? No point in discussing it is a cop-out. Saves you the trouble of studying the rest of God's word.

Which book? the book Jesus Christ brought down or the "BOOKS" we have today? See, we believe there is a difference between the original Enjeel(NT) and the ones we have today. So yes, we also do believe that people who follow corrupted laws also have tendency to act corruptibly.

Quran untouched sounds like descended to earth from Allah Himself, but we do know it was also written on this and that, kept in bits and parts, memorized by so many for so long, then compiled by men. No matter how you slice it, you can't say untouched. Luckily everyone involved spoke/wrote Arabic.

Actually, the Quran was memorized by many, and physically written by one. The entire Quran itself, was memorized and recited on a daily basis, and would be instantly corrected if someone made a mistake.

The book itself, was compiled into a book first by one person, and then copied untouched around the world.

We can claim the Quran is untouched because no one has yet found a different version. And if one shows up, it will be discarded.

The difference is that Christian Bible are in fact existing in different versions(not translations).

Mr Deedat can probably answer you question better

Here is the full video:

Edited by repenter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which book? the book Jesus Christ brought down or the "BOOKS" we have today? See, we believe there is a difference between the original Enjeel(NT) and the ones we have today. So yes, we also do believe that people who follow corrupted laws also have tendency to act corruptibly.

Good question although there is no book called the Engeel. Never was. Jesus wasn't handed a book, nor did He ever write one. If I remember correctly, (don't be afraid to correct me) the Injil is mentioned 9 times in the Quran. In the context written the Injil still isn't a book. What hadith has done with it since then is a nuther nuther. The Injil is not the NT either but is embedded in it. The NT is a totally different format than the Quran. This contraversy is ages old for many reasons, but the truth remains the same. Tell me, which corrupted laws?

Actually, the Quran was memorized by many, and physically written by one. The entire Quran itself, was memorized and recited on a daily basis, and would be instantly corrected if someone made a mistake.

The book itself, was compiled into a book first by one person, and then copied untouched around the world.

We can claim the Quran is untouched because no one has yet found a different version. And if one shows up, it will be discarded.

The difference is that Christian Bible are in fact existing in different versions(not translations).

Yes, the Bible became the most translated/transliterated book in the world, especially in the last few decades. Seems like everyone wanted a bible that better suited their beliefs. It's not so much what is written but what is read into, (or out of) it. I'm not a big fan of Constantine and the council of Nicea, but a truly falsified version would have Jesus saying "I am God". This didn't happen. You can read it into the NT if you like, many Christian scholars have. Still doesn't make their interpretations true.

As far as the Bible's copilation, the Quran history isn't a lot different. The different version was brought forward by Ali, but rejected without even a look. Ali said, "okay, you'll never see it again". At the time the Quran was compiled some 6 other versions, (and/or suras) were discarded/burnt, (the decision of one man). Even so, it's not what's written in the Quran that divides Sunni, Sufis, Shia, etc, it's the way in which it's interpreted.

The real danger is in believing what others say about the Bible without reading it for yourself. Most Christians read it with a trinitarian bias, most Muslims assume that to be what's written and read it with an opposing bias. Sure messes things up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Asad,

Quote from Post 39:

All this doesnt matter once you remove paul from the equation. What makes you christians choose paul over jesus(saws) brother james? Have you ever researched why you chose paul over james the just?

Response: I guess you will have to explain what Scriptures you are talking about. I have not found a disharmony between James and Paul, --- or where you see an equation? --- Or choosing one over the other?

--- James was the Pastor, or Elder of the Christian Church in Jerusalem, --- and Paul was an Apostle to the Gentiles.

In a Church meeting in Acts 15, James referred to Paul this way:

25. It seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul.

--- Also, the Apostle Peter wrote of him in 2 Peter 3:

14. Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found in Him (Christ) in peace, without spot and blameless.

15. And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation – as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you.

--- Paul was approved by all the Apostles, and God calls him ‘a chosen vessel, in Acts 9:

15. But the Lord said to him (Ananias), “Go, for he (Paul) is a chosen vessel of Mine to bear My name before Gentiles, kings, and the Children of Israel.”

Can you give the Scripture that you are referring to, or what you have heard that seemed to indicate there was a choice made between James and Paul?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ibrahim,

I look forward to your response, but I would like to add a little.

In the various ‘manifestations of God’ in bodily form in the OT, it has been taught that these Personages were the ‘pre-incarnate Christ,’ --- or the Personage of Jesus, before He was born on earth.

--- However, rather than the appearances being the OT Jesus, or the ‘pre-incarnate Christ,’ I understand them to be the OT Word (Logos), who would be the NT Word, that indwelt Jesus during His years on earth. --- Therefore, you could identify the pre-existing Word (Logos), --- that would indwell the human body of Jesus as another ‘bodily appearance.’

Let’s consider one such appearance. In Joshua 5:

13. And it came to pass, when Joshua was by Jericho, that he lifted his eyes and looked, and behold, a Man stood opposite him with His sword drawn in His hand. And Joshua went to Him and said to Him, “Are You for us or for our adversaries?”

14. So He said, “No, but as Commander of the army of the LORD I have now come.” And Joshua fell on his face to the earth and worshiped, and said to Him, “What does my Lord say to His servant?”

15, Then the Commander of the LORD’S army said to him, “Take your sandal off your foot, for the place you stand is holy.” And Joshua did so.

--- In Joshua 6, the LORD gave the strategy to defeat the walled city of Jericho.

As Commander of the LORD’S army, I believe this was an appearance of the Word (Logos), who strengthened Joshua and gave him instruction. While He is not mentioned again in bodily form, I believe He continued as ‘the LORD of hosts throughout the OT. --- Also, ‘army’ and ‘hosts’ are used interchangeably.

To continue with the Word as the LORD of hosts, let’s go to a passage you used from Isaiah 48:

Through these chapters it is the LORD of hosts who is speaking, as in 47:

4. As for our Redeemer, the LORD of hosts is His name, the Holy One of Israel.

48:1. Hear this O house of Jacob, who are called by the name of Israel,

And have come forth from the wellsprings of Judah, who swear by the name of the Lord.

And make mention of the God of Israel, but not in truth or in righteousness;

2. For they call themselves after the holy city, and lean on the God of Israel, the LORD of hosts is His name.

12. Listen to Me, O Jacob, and Israel, My called.

I am He, I am the First, I am also the Last.

13. Indeed, My hand has laid the foundation of the earth, and My right hand has stretched out the heavens.

16. Come near to Me, hear this: I have not spoken in secret from the beginning.

From the time that it was, I was there.

And now, the Lord God and His Spirit have sent Me.

--- Notice how this is written, The Lord God (the Father) and His (Holy) Spirit have sent Me (the Word, Logos.)

--- And notice that in 1 John 5:7, John mentions the three witnesses in heaven, “The Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.”

--- (It also says in Surah 4:171. “The Messiah Jesus was a Messenger of God, and His Word, which He conveyed into Mary, and a Spirit from Him. --- Again the ‘three were one,’ and Jesus was their messenger to mankind.)

Placid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[The English Bible , from the King James version to the other 1,236 versions that exist today and growing ,

are written in all fiction adverb verb, english.

For those who have knowledge of Quantum english, it has been proven mathematically , that the english language is corrupt , void of nouns (facts) and removed of SYNTAX.

This has been done intentionally over the last several hundred years in order to manipulate , deceive and create the fiction world which we have today.

As all english Bibles are written in verb adverb transcripts removed of all nouns (facts ), with no syntax , and proper grammar , making it void , and in most cases meaning the opposite to what it's saying.This has been proven mathematically by an American non muslim quantum english expert.

He has said that the :Holy- Quran. Arabic language is a perfect language with syntax , nouns and perfect grammar, and mathematically it is perfect(Subhan'Allah) .He also said that Hebrew , Aramaic and Sanskrit , Galic and other ancient languages also have some of these qualities.

Be grateful for the bounties bestowed to us by :Allah. سبحانه وتعالى, and his beloved :Prophet. and the immaculate :Ahlul-Bayt.(PBUT).]

You have got to be kidding, You can take courses in quantum english which has nothing to do with math.

You'll have to show me your cheat sheet.

Arabic is the perfect language? Isn't that the language where every other word has 26 meanings?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam/Shalom/Peace Everyone,

People do criticize both the Bible and the Qur'an for alleged contradictions. As a Christian who loves to study God's Written Word, the Bible, explaining the alleged contradictions is a desire God gave me, same as Muslims who love to study the Qur'an have the desire to explain alleged contradictions in the Qur'an.

Saying that there are no contradictions is not a satisfactory explanation for either the alleged contradictions in the Bible or in the Qur'an. Thet's lik saying there ain't no errors in a santence full uh errors.

The following are some alleged contradictions in the Bible that Mightymask lists. Personally, I understand why they bother him and other people, though they don't bother me at all. They do not shake my faith in the protection of God for the Written Word that He inspired Moses, Joshua, the other prophets to the Children of Israel, and Jesus Christ's disciples to write:

Quote

24,000 died in the plague. Num.25:9.
23,000 died in the plague. 1 Cor.10:8

Logic:

In order for 24,000 people to have died of the plague, 23,000 people had to have died of it.  Paul in his letter to the church in Corinth was not concerned about quoting the exact number of how many died. Rather, he was concerned because the Corinthian church had a lot of issues with sexual immorality and he wanted to show them that God punishes disobedience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Quote

Arphaxad was the father of Salah. Gen.11:12.
Arphaxad was the grandfather of Salah. Lk.3:35,36.

 

Luke, more than likely a Greek, copied from the Septuagint:

And Arphaxad begot Cainan, and Cainan begot Sala. And Sala begot Heber.

-       Genesis 10:24 http://www.ecmarsh.com/lxx/Genesis/index.htm

This does not change anything important in Jewish history however.

Quote

The circumcision covenant was forever. Gen.17:10-13.
The circumcision covenant was of no importance. Gal.6:15.

 

The circumcision covenant for the Children of Israel is forever.

Paul did not negate the circumcision covenant for the Children of Israel. Rather, he advocated the very important fact that Gentiles do not have to be circumcised in order to follow Jesus Christ.

Sadly, many Jewish people who were circumcised did not accept Jesus as the Christ/Anointed One/Mashiach, which goes to show that just being circumcised (that happens to baby boys according to the law of Moses) doesn’t magically make men believe in the Mashiach. 

Saul/Paul, for example, was circumcised according to the law of Moses but didn’t accept Jesus as the Christ until Jesus Christ appeared to him and changed (“circumcised”) his heart. This fulfills Deuteronomy 30:6:

And HaShem thy G-d will circumcise thy heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love HaShem thy G-d with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live. – Deuteronomy 30:6

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Bible/Deuter30.html

 

Quote

God made Solomon the wisest king that ever lived, stating there would never be another like him. 1 Ki.3:12.
Jesus said that he was greater than Solomon. Mt.12:42; Lk.11:31.

 

Jesus Christ is greater than Solomon, but that does not contradict God’s words since Jesus Christ is the Word of God. Of course the living Word of God is greater than a mere mortal.

 

 

  

 

 

Edited by Christianlady

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

Ahimalech was the high priest when David ate the shewbread. 1 Sam.21:1-6.
Abiathar was the high priest when David ate the shewbread. Mk.2:26

 

 

1 Samuel 21:1-6 does not call Ahimalech the “high” priest, but rather a priest.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Bible/Samuel21.html

 

Abiathar is mentioned in 1 Samuel 22: (I boldened some.)

And the king said: 'Thou shalt surely die, Ahimelech, thou, and all thy father's house.'

And the king said unto the guard that stood about him: 'Turn, and slay the priests of HaShem; because their hand also is with David, and because they knew that he fled, and did not disclose it to me.' But the servants of the king would not put forth their hand to fall upon the priests of HaShem.

And the king said to Doeg: 'Turn thou, and fall upon the priests.' And Doeg the Edomite turned, and he fell upon the priests, and he slew on that day fourscore and five persons that did wear a linen ephod.

And Nob, the city of the priests, smote he with the edge of the sword, both men and women, children and sucklings, and oxen and asses and sheep, with the edge of the sword.

And one of the sons of Ahimelech the son of Ahitub, named Abiathar, escaped, and fled after David.

-       1 Samuel 22:16-20 http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Bible/Samuel22.html

Horribly, King Saul (first king of Israel) killed all the priests except for Abiathar, son of Ahimelech.  :(

Jesus Christ considered Abiathar, son of Ahimelech to be the high priest during the events in 1 Samuel 21.

Who am I to disagree with what Jesus Christ says? I was not alive in that time, but Jesus Christ has always been the Word of God, even before he took human form.

Peace and God bless you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam/Shalom/Peace

Quote

Lot committed incest with his two daughters. Gen.19:30-38.
Lot was a righteous man. 2 Pet.2:7,8.

Lot was raped by his daughters, who were sadly influenced by the sexual immorality of Sodom, the city in which they lived. :(

For men who don't know, women can rape men. How they raped him was by getting him so drunk he couldn't see and seducing him. It's really sad and disgusting and evil.

Being raped does not make a person unrighteous. If so, then any woman who is raped magically becomes "unrighteous" which is not true. Rape is a crime and the rapists are the criminals, whereas the rape victim is a victim.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recent Posts on ShiaChat!

    • Guest WestSide Story
      Looking for testimonials of being married to someone with different level of practicing Islam (Shia Islam specifically). Moderate woman to not so moderate man. Scenerio: Individually both have compatibility. Looking at them their are no apparent differences. They are happy. Neither drink.  But only one eats halal. One comes from a moderate practicing family and one from a family that has little distinction from western lifestyle and some of the family members drink but live elsewhere. Both individuals have older kids. Can it be a succesful second marriage? 
    • https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=10&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjKjJuLttTXAhXNI1AKHbmwCnkQFghbMAk&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.slideshare.net%2Fhuseinmhanna%2Fthe-structure-of-the-universe&usg=AOvVaw1u9CB07-W2u5JxwR-e2HWP http://qfatima.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/tawheed.pdf
    • Feminists typically use terms like "male-dominated culture" so I just wanted to ask if you are a feminist. Also patriarchy is not inherently bad. No matter how you look at it Islam promotes a form of a patriarchal society. So just so you know. However I am not defending the patriarchy of Desi culture. Which is what we are talking about. I am advocating the patriarchy of an Ideal Shia Islamic social society (Yes these have existed historically to various extents).    Also I have seen housewives who can cook a mean paratta and clean well and still they are degraded by not only other women but by men, who tend to gravitate towards free-loving women. They are not appreciated by men as well. I am talking of the West, so I will let others respond on how accurate your statements are about the east. Something tells me you are still projecting and exaggerating.    Again, when you use the word "men" you are referring to a specific type of men. So don't generalize like the OP did. Also modesty is also a concern as well. I have seen this and I can give anecdotes as well to prove this. But let us not play the anecdote game. You would be surprised what western Muslim women, especially in college, get up to. So let us not pretend Muslim women are angels. Remember, for every Muslims man who fornicates there is often times another Muslim woman willing to do it with them. So don't think it is a "guy" issue, it is also a gal issue as well. Also there may be more reasons than the ones you and I listed too as to why an eastern man wants to marry a western woman, but it has everything to do with the guy trying to "make-up" for his guilty conscious and it may manifest in ways such as he thinking he can make it up by having his wife cook and clean (in a weird and twisted way, after all humans are psychologically complex creatures). But your cynical explanation makes it sound is as if Muslimah are dainty little flowers who earn money through a job and when they get married their hubby goes all Hollywood mustache twirling villain on them, or goes Ape on them out of nowhere. This is an incredibly naive and biased analysis and only ends up creating more questions rather than answering them.     Also you just answered your question. Replace men with "cultural Desi men". But you saying "men" is generalizing and I can also name "hundreds of examples" that run counter to yours. As can anyone here. No one here is defending Desi (primarily hindu influenced culture). But you seem to think we are.   On a tangential note Muslims nowadays are willing to blame Islam rather than Hindus for the defiencies that are present in Desi culture. Despite the fact that most of the deleterious behaviors of Desi culture had its origins in ancient Hindu culture that ancient Muslims picked up on. "Purdah" is a famous example of something that quite likely originated amongst  and was widely propagated  by Hindu culture and that Muslims adopted as well but tend to confuse with Islam in incorrect ways (the state of the prophets wives was not the same of a random Muslim woman back then and now,  most scholars agree on this).    Also you went on a tangent about working and being modest. Read my first post on the topic to know that Muslim women ALWAYS worked for 1400+ years in some job or another but had time for their family and household responsibilities. Even Umar Ibn al Khattab of all people hired a woman as "head of market operations ".  And above all else these Muslim women only thought of their job as a job and never let their job or income define them. I don't care if you earn money or not. You are not special or free or liberated or any other adjective you can name. And historically Muslim women used to be doctors way back even in the 1000s but never used to let their career define them. Except that they heal people. But modern day feminism does define a womans worth by her income and somehow she is "not tame" because she earns money. That is laughable. Sister "notme" did a good job of explaining the problem with people like you and your motivations to work. 
    • Sermon 1: Praise is due to Allah whose worth cannot be described…. In this sermon he recalls the creation of Earth and Sky and the creation of Adam and in it he mentions the Hajj Praise is due to Allah whose worth cannot be described by speakers, whose bounties cannot be counted by calculators and whose claim (to obedience) cannot be satisfied by those who attempt to do so, whom the height of intellectual courage cannot appreciate, and the divings of understanding cannot reach; He for whose description no limit has been laid down, no eulogy exists, no time is ordained and no duration is fixed. He brought forth creation through His Omnipotence, dispersed winds through His Compassion, and made firm the shaking earth with rocks. https://www.al-islam.org/nahjul-balagha-part-1-sermons/sermon-1-praise-due-Allah-whose-worth-cannot-be-described#creation-universe
    • https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/encyclopedia/content.aspx?ContentTypeID=90&ContentID=P02630 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_reflexes http://islamic-laws.com/eatinghabbit.htm According to the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.), inviting relatives, friends and neighbours for a dinner (Valeema) is sunnat on five occasions - Marriage, Aqiqa (first shaving of the child's head), Khatna (circumcision), when one has bought a new house or made a new house and lastly, when a visitor returns from travel. For Vegeterians Unless they choose a proper balance of foods, strict vegetarians are at risk for several deficiencies, especially vitamin B12. The other nutrients at risk are riboflavin, calcium, iron, and the essential amino acids lysine and methionine. Vegetarian children not exposed to sunlight are at risk for vitamin D deficiency. Zinc deficiency can occur in vegans because the phytic acid in whole grains binds zinc, and there is little zinc in fruits and vegetables. Since B12 is present only in animal foods and a limited number of specially fortified foods, vegans should probably take B12 supplements prescribed by a physician. Further, the symptoms of vegetarianism may include protein deficiency, amino acid and mineral depletion coupled with chronic low levels of energy. Another tradition describes green kasni leaves as a very good vegetable. Not a single leaf of kasni is devoid of a drop of water of heaven and therefore when one eats one should not shake it. It is also stated that kasni leaves (endive) are superior to all vegetables in the same manner as Ahlul Bait (a.s.) are superior to all mankind. Kasni leaves when eaten cause birth of male children who are also beautiful. When a person was ill with fever and headache, the Imam (a.s.) asked kasni leaves to be beaten in pulp, spread on paper, and sprinkled with oil of banafsha and then applied on the forehead of that person as it will completely cure both the fever and the headache.   The effects of eating Behi (quince), as stated by Hazrat Ali (a.s.), are the following: a)      Strengthens weak heart b)      Causes increase in weight c)      Cleans the stomach d)      Increases reason e)      Makes a man courageous   According to Imam Ja'far-e-Sadiq (a.s.), eating Behi (quince) improves complexion and causes beautiful children. When a person complained to Imam Reza (a.s.) of having few children, he (a.s.) asked him to eat egg with onion.
×